The decisions of an impartial observer in cases of unavoidable conflict of interest, if indifferent, cannot provide the rule of right action because, not being partial he has no basis for a decision unless given a rule.
"Toss a coin" is nobody's idea of the fundamental rule of morality.
And how could his own mere impartiality provide reason to think his interference could make things better?
You say he will maximize utility among those affected?
But now you have given him a rule.
You have told him both to decide and how to decide.
And even if you had not (though I repeat you have) why would his manner of deciding be the rule for morality?
And wouldn't any parent tell you that is not the way to decide such cases; you must instead scrupulously observe the rule of equality?
No comments:
Post a Comment